Site icon Clarion India

Fresh Petition Moved in Supreme Court to Remove Protesting Farmers from Various Borders

Supreme Court of India.

Additional affidavit before January 11 hearing invokes SC judgement in Shaheen Bagh case

NEW DELHI — Before the scheduled January 11 Supreme Court hearing on petitions seeking the removal of farmers protesting at various Delhi borders, an additional affidavit has been filed to find a direction to shift the protesters as the road blockade was causing hardship for the common people.

On Friday, the talks between the Centre and farmers’ unions opposed to the new agriculture laws failed to make headway.

The affidavit filed by Delhi resident Rishabh Sharma contended that the continuous blockade of public roads by the farmers at various places is only causing undue hardship to the common citizens, which is again violating their constitutional rights of free movements.

The petitioner emphasized that the road blockade also violated the Supreme Court verdict in the Shaheen Bagh case, where scores of anti-CAA protesters had also similarly blocked roads.

“If the farmers protest as such is allowed to continue by allowing them to block the public road; it will not only contradict this courts own judgment in Shaheen Bagh Matter but also it will cause hardship and inconvenience to common citizen,” said the plea.

The petitioner argued that the blockade was leading to huge traffic jams and citizens are prevented from travelling to the required destination in Delhi for the purpose of earning their livelihood.

He urged the apex court to issue direction to the government to open all borders of the national capital.

On December 17, 2020, the top court said it would not interfere with the protest in question, as the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order.

In the Shaheen Bagh judgment, the top court had said that protest and dissent was a democratic right, but it cannot be allowed to encroach upon the right to free movement of the general public, which was a greater right. — IANS

Exit mobile version